Abortion Proponents Twist Science and Advances in Medicine

Pro-life author and professor Dr William Brennan wrote in 1983 that “[t]he womb as a surgical theater for the unborn is the perfect paradigm for the schizophrenic world of contemporary medicine where killing and curing share a perverse state of compatibility.” He, as did many pro-lifers, knew science was on their side and that the more our understanding of the human life cycle was broadened, the more the world would begin to see unborn life as worthy of legal protection.

But no one underestimated the “awesome ability of modern destructive technology to keep the victims’ plight concealed,” as Dr. Brennan put it.

Nothing illustrates this point better than today’s abortion industries pushing to introduce webcam abortions deep into the American heartland and their obstinance in denying what scientific evidence has shown: that the unborn child can feel pain.

Richard Carlile, an activist publisher in 19th Century England who fervently believed in population control observed: “The destruction of conceptions [abortions] have been sought by acts of violence, by doses of poison, that must injure, if not destroy, the body of the mother to reach that of the foetus in her womb. This is dreadful, truly dreadful.”

I would argue that any chemical mixture which has the record of RU486 constitutes a modern dose of poison that injures, if not destroys, the body of the mother to destroy the life within her. This is a harmful practice so contradictory to the very idea of medicine, that it was obvious even to a population control advocate almost 200 years ago.

Consider that even under the controlled conditions of clinical trials for RU486 in which the most physically ideal candidates were selected, the drug cocktail put one in 100 users in the hospital. Two percent of women had such severe bleeding that they required surgery. During U.S. trials, one woman in Iowa nearly bled to death.

Despite this, it is the mindset of the abortion industry today to cherry-pick what science and modern technology has to offer and turn it deadly.

It is this mindset that took advances in antisepsis and advocated for creating a legal right to abortion. It takes medical sonography and uses it to guide the abortionist’s tools. It takes pharmaceutical and telecommunication advances and produces a “telemedicine” webcam abortion facilities wherein a mother may be administered the deadly drug RU-486 at a great distance from the prescribing doctor. It is a mindset that manipulates science with only the goal of honing its lethal efficiency in ending unborn human life.

That is why it should not surprise us that the abortion industry opposes the Unborn Child Pain Prevention Act, the only humane response and reasonable legal conclusion to the scientific evidence that the developing unborn human is capable of experiencing tremendous pain by at least 20 weeks after fertilization.

These are the same people who keep trying to make the oxymoronic phrase “abortion care” stick.

Pro-lifers put up with a lot of abusive language from detractors who call us anti-choice, anti-science and backward. But I have to ask: Who is backward if not the proponents of using all scientific and medical advancement to perfect the lethal efficiency of ending unborn life at the cost of the mother?

But if anything about abortion-on-demand as a policy should have been evidence of its backwardness, it is that it was and is based in an ideology that classifies an entire segment of humanity as “unwanted.”